Planning appeals are changing and local authorities must change with them

From 1 April 2026, most planning appeals determined by written representations will move to a streamlined process that accepts only the evidence submitted at the application stage. The intention of this move is clear – to keep decisions local, reduce duplication and speed up outcomes. But this shift also places a new level of responsibility on LPAs to ensure that their decision‑making is watertight from the outset.

Areas of change

One area where the emphasis will change is section 106 planning obligations. Under the new regime, LPAs that fail to clearly justify their obligations in their delegated or committee reports may find themselves unable to defend them at appeal and, ultimately, unable to require them at all.

While the legal test hasn’t changed, the stakes certainly have as a result of the new streamlined process. Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (as amended) sets out the well‑known three‑limb test for planning obligations.

What’s changing is the procedural environment in which it must be demonstrated. With appeals now limited to the evidence already before the LPA, inspectors will no longer accept late‑stage justification for obligations that were not properly explained in the original decision documentation. 

Many LPAs currently include a list of proposed s106 obligations at the end of their reports that they consider are ‘obviously’ required. While convenient, this approach is going to become increasingly risky.

Meeting requirements

Under the new system, a simple list that does not demonstrate necessity, does not explain the policy basis, does not show how the obligation meets the scale‑and‑kind requirement and does not evidence the harm, may lead an inspector to conclude that the obligation fails the Regulation 122 test and strike it out.

In other words, LPAs could lose the ability to secure contributions they routinely rely on, not because the obligation is unjustified, but because the justification wasn’t properly recorded.

To avoid losing obligations at appeal, LPAs should ensure that every s106 requirement is fully reasoned within the main body of the officer or committee report and not relegated to an appendix or summary table.

The new written‑representations process is designed to streamline appeals, reduce duplication, and reinforce the primacy of local decision‑making. But it also removes the safety net of providing additional justification later.

A well‑reasoned report is no longer best practice – it’s essential.